Yadira Hurst worked for Crystal Clear Maintenance, Inc., which held a federal service contract to clean the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) national cemetery in Santa Fe, New Mexico. When RC Tech, Inc. succeeded Crystal Clear as the maintenance contractor in June 2018, federal regulations required RC Tech to offer employment to Crystal Clear’s workers. RC Tech hired Hurst for the same position she held under the prior contract. Hurst was paid and supervised exclusively by RC Tech, although VA staff occasionally directed her on-site duties.
While working at the cemetery, Hurst alleged that two VA employees sexually harassed her. One sent her an explicit text message, while another propositioned her, sent her sexually suggestive social media messages, and once physically blocked her path until she agreed to hug him. Hurst reported the conduct to both RC Tech and VA supervisors. The VA directed RC Tech to remove Hurst from the cemetery after other VA employees accused her of unprofessional behavior. RC Tech, which had no other local contracts, terminated her employment on September 19, 2018.
Hurst filed a Title VII action against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, alleging sexual harassment and unlawful termination. The VA moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not her employer within the meaning of Title VII. The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico agreed, concluding that Hurst was an employee of RC Tech, not the VA, and that the VA did not exercise sufficient control over her employment to qualify as a joint employer.
Hurst appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court applied the joint-employer test from Knitter v. Corvias Military Living, LLC (2014), which examines whether two entities share or co-determine the essential terms and conditions of employment. The most important factor is the right to terminate the employment relationship, followed by authority to establish work rules, supervise daily duties, determine pay and benefits, and maintain employment records.
The court found that RC Tech alone had the right to hire, fire, and pay Hurst. Although the VA could request removal of contractor employees from its property, this authority did not equate to termination power. The court noted that the VA did not know RC Tech had no other local contracts, and its request for removal did not control Hurst’s continued employment with RC Tech.
The appellate court also found no evidence that the VA influenced RC Tech’s hiring decision. RC Tech was required to offer employment under federal contracting regulations, but it retained discretion to reject Hurst if it believed she had performed poorly. The court determined that this process did not confer hiring authority on the VA.
In evaluating other factors, the court held that RC Tech determined Hurst’s compensation and benefits, while the VA’s oversight of her work was consistent with a standard client-vendor relationship. VA staff occasionally provided direction, but RC Tech was contractually responsible for supervising and training its employees. Additionally, RC Tech maintained all employment records, including payroll and insurance.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that the VA was not Hurst’s employer or joint employer under Title VII because it lacked control over her employment relationship. The court concluded that Hurst’s claims could not proceed against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
If you are facing workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, or retaliation, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC assists with labor and employment cases. Contact our team to learn how we can help protect your rights and pursue justice in the workplace.